538 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

nobody should wonder why they recieve abuse
because nobody shoild recieve abuse.

you and I have had all sorts of discussions over the years. I don't know about you, but I've enjoyed them immensely.
Nobody should recieve abuse for having tyhe 'wrong' ideas. I speak from bitter experience.

Oh I enjoy a good debate and yes we've had some good ones.

I am not interested in abusing Parky, I'm just hoping that he might come to understand that his behaviour encourages this.

He constantly misrepresents what people have said.

[Northern Sol]

Yeh I've done it 12.901 times, but blimey solly your down as having done 13,502 posts

You were wrong about Crusaders spending the full salary cap.
You were wrong about the Scottish club joining the national leagues.
You were wrong the second London SL club.

You will be proved wrong about the plan to centrally fund Broncos.

But it's me that post rubbish.

[intheshed]

Declare your interest good sir? Who is your club??

You question whether it would be wise to "continue to do things the same way". What particular way is this??

Is this the SL way where an expansion club, with all the massive benefits it would bring to RL if Broncos took off in London or if Celtic Crusaders became a bigger club than some of the RU "no names" in Wales, are allowed only the same SKY money as Wigan, Leeds and Hull who have 140 years start, to achieve this goal???

Monsterous short sightedness by the insular SL chairmen dontcha think??

Do these people care for the game or are they just forming some sort of cliquey northern rich mans club.??

The point is there's no more money for Crusaders YES and the SL club no longer exists TRUE.

But the same point is there's no more money for Salford as it stands and the heartland SL club may exist no longer.

Same thing.

So shall we drop the expansion policy because nobody wants to watch or fund clubs outside the M62? And at the same time shall we drop the "M62 only" attitude of many on here because nobody wants to watch or fund most clubs in heartlands either??

Yes we had an experience with Gateshead and Paris that was unfortunate. nobody wants to watch or fund clubs who fail in Superleague.

Yes we had an experience with Oldham, Workington, Halifax, Leigh, Sheffield, Keighley, Bradford, Wakefield, and Salford, nobody wants to watch or fund northern clubs who fail in Superleague either.

Can you see the similarity? Can you see the ambiguity?

When clubs outside the M62 struggle I suspect some people have a wry smile and delight in suggesting best not try that again?

After all it doesn't work does it, Paris, Gateshead, Barcelona, Rome. London, Wales etc prove it doesn't work.

Trouble is Salford (formed in 1873, joined the NU in 1896, six times top club in the Rugby league, record attendance 26,000) doesn't work for sure and Bradford and Wakefield don't work either.

My point is simple.

There are no "expansion" or "heartland" clubs. there are only "Rugby League Clubs" and those who seek to create a "them and us" between the M62 and anywhere that is foreign to the M62 (that's just south of Sheffield BTW) such that they can declare "them" unviable, usually have a thumping big chip on their shoulder that leads them to suggest to their Northern Rugby League Working Mens Club (affiliated) that such aliens should be discouraged from membership .

Thing is if you want a successful Rugby League you make sure Wigan are at the heart of Lancashire,

Then you make sure Leeds sits proud at the heart of Yorkshire.

Then you add Hull to complete rugby Leagues traditional giants.

Then we need the capitol London. It's essential, in go the Broncos.

Now we need Wales its big Rugby Country (oooh no we need Doncaster, Sheffield, etc) they love their RL in Wales

Now we need Les Catalans to get that third international profile and France to the fore.

Those are the six essential clubs needed in "super league europe" (did you note the "europe") for the game to ever succeed.

OK I appreciate there's an alternative, appparently Halifax, Leigh and Featherstone are making great strides. Forget London, Wales and France "who needs 'em". When we can have Halifax fighting for the same fans, players and sponsors as Bradford and Fartown, when we can have Featherstone battling it out with Cas and Wakey for every paying fan and playing kid down Calder way, and of course Leigh, who can also play tug of war over every fan and player torn between going a couple of miles up the road or a coule of miles down the road.

Fine by me, the M62 mob can eat themselves, but don't tell me I have things wrong because I don't. I am not blessed with any more brains than anyone else on here, but I don't get weighed down by a "my club is not in Superleague, those damn foreigners are blocking the way, they should sord off, I don't care if my club isn't in superleague, I much prefer the championship, but oh god how I wish we were in there really" rubbish.

There are so many straw men in there I wouldn't know where to start even if I felt inclined to indulge you. It's an impressive and detailed rebuttal of the case against expansion, however as it's not a case I'm seeking to make it's largely redundant.

My point was and is that the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked. I'm afraid on that point I must tell you that yes, I do think you have it wrong. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but to date you have chosen not to support your position preferring instead to focus on issues which I am not seeking to dispute.

SL teams in Dublin, Cardiff, Rome etc..., absolutely. No argument from me, it sounds great just give me a reason to believe that if we do it the same way as we did with Paris, Gateshead & to a lesser extent Crusaders we won't get the same result, no SL club within a couple of years. As you say it shouldn't be about expansion v heartland and I would be equally sceptical about any plan to expend valuable time, credibility and resources on a harebrained plan to drop heartlands clubs into SL on the off chance it might work.

My club, you ask? Featherstone. If that allows you to write me off as an abusive oik with a chip on my shoulder, so be it but humour me and explain why you have confidence that top down can work. I'm a reasonable guy, you might even persuade me!!

[Padge]

There are so many straw men in there I wouldn't know where to start even if I felt inclined to indulge you. It's an impressive and detailed rebuttal of the case against expansion, however as it's not a case I'm seeking to make it's largely redundant.

My point was and is that the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked. I'm afraid on that point I must tell you that yes, I do think you have it wrong. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but to date you have chosen not to support your position preferring instead to focus on issues which I am not seeking to dispute.

SL teams in Dublin, Cardiff, Rome etc..., absolutely. No argument from me, it sounds great just give me a reason to believe that if we do it the same way as we did with Paris, Gateshead & to a lesser extent Crusaders we won't get the same result, no SL club within a couple of years. As you say it shouldn't be about expansion v heartland and I would be equally sceptical about any plan to expend valuable time, credibility and resources on a harebrained plan to drop heartlands clubs into SL on the off chance it might work.

My club, you ask? Featherstone. If that allows you to write me off as an abusive oik with a chip on my shoulder, so be it but humour me and explain why you have confidence that top down can work. I'm a reasonable guy, you might even persuade me!!

Just a few questions

Are you pro expansion (I know the answer but amuse me please)

Would you consider having Cas, Fev and Wakey in SL at the expense of London or Catalan as expansion, and if so how.

How long, using the bottom up expansion model, would you estimate it will take for London Skolors ( for the sake of argument) to get to a position where they could be a viable SL club.

[intheshed]

Just a few questions

Are you pro expansion (I know the answer but amuse me please)

Yes.

Would you consider having Cas, Fev and Wakey in SL at the expense of London or Catalan as expansion, and if so how.

Not sure I entirely understand what you are asking. I would not actively seek to avoid having Cas, Fev and Wakey in SL together if all three were amongst the strongest 10,12,14 teams by whatever the applicable measure is/was. If London or Catalan were not among the strongest 10,12,14 then I could live with it. It wouldn't be ideal but if after taking into account whatever weighting we as a game choose to place upon 'expansion status' they were still not among the strongest teams, tough.

How long, using the bottom up expansion model, would you estimate it will take for London Skolors ( for the sake of argument) to get to a position where they could be a viable SL club.

How long is a piece of string? I suspect you may be falling into the same trap as parksider in assuming I'm arguing for a return to 30 years ago. I've no particular objection to fast tracking its just that I think we should have a reasonable expectation of success before we afford a team that privilege, regardless of geography.

If we genuinely and reasonably believe that by elevating Skolars to SL they will become, rather than already being, a viable SL club and would not cease to exist as a viable SL entity at the withdrawal of one source of finance then great, put 'em in. Preferably in addition to the existing clubs rather than as a replacement. If like Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, Hull KR, Huddersfield....(get my drift? not just expansion teams) they appear to be reliant on a single source of finance and/or imported players who are about to become significantly more expensive then no, no special privileges. work your way through the pyramid, however long it takes. A desire to expand shouldn't blind us to the likelihood of its success.

Edited by intheshed, 22 December 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

nobody should wonder why they recieve abuse
because nobody shoild recieve abuse.

you and I have had all sorts of discussions over the years. I don't know about you, but I've enjoyed them immensely.
Nobody should recieve abuse for having tyhe 'wrong' ideas. I speak from bitter experience.

If someone is going to post in a constantly provocative nature, then they cannot complain when they receive an emotional response. That is what defines provoking!

The provocation stops, the unwelcome responses stop. It's not a coincidence. It's not about having the right or wrong ideas.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

But anyways...

So Salford have a cancelled a friendly now. Is this the latest sign of impending doom? Anything on the positive front?

[The Parksider]

I am not interested in abusing Parky, I'm just hoping that he might come to understand that his behaviour encourages this.

He constantly misrepresents what people have said.

You still don't get it my good friend. You want to pass the opinion I misrepresent what people say, that's fine,
but I think you misrepresent things and I think several people who don't like SL will argue black is white with me.

These things do work both ways and as long as we are civil and stick to the debate fine. But your posts are all "you this" and "you that". That's just being personal.

So it may be best if we ignore each other, because all your doing is encouraging others who want a pop to hold your coat. Deal?

[The Parksider]

If someone is going to post in a constantly provocative nature, then they cannot complain when they receive an emotional response. That is what defines provoking!

The provocation stops, the unwelcome responses stop. It's not a coincidence. It's not about having the right or wrong ideas.

So what's going on here? Are you just trying to provoke me? You don't get it either, put me on ignore if you don't like me. That's what Mr. Drake requires.

[Northern Sol]

You still don't get it my good friend. You want to pass the opinion I misrepresent what people say, that's fine,
but I think you misrepresent things and I think several people who don't like SL will argue black is white with me.

These things do work both ways and as long as we are civil and stick to the debate fine. But your posts are all "you this" and "you that". That's just being personal.

So it may be best if we ignore each other, because all your doing is encouraging others who want a pop to hold your coat. Deal?

I would if you stop perpetrating myths. There was never any Barcelona SL club "mooted". There were only some foolish posts made on the Internet.

The same goes for Dublin or Scotland.

These are not places that the RFL has chosen to expand to. They might might like to but these are just myths that you have created just like ParisSurTout invented a fictitious Stade Francais RL team.

[The Parksider]

There are so many straw men in there I wouldn't know where to start even if I felt inclined to indulge you. It's an impressive and detailed rebuttal of the case against expansion, however as it's not a case I'm seeking to make it's largely redundant.

My point was and is that the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked. I'm afraid on that point I must tell you that yes, I do think you have it wrong. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but to date you have chosen not to support your position preferring instead to focus on issues which I am not seeking to dispute.

SL teams in Dublin, Cardiff, Rome etc..., absolutely. No argument from me, it sounds great just give me a reason to believe that if we do it the same way as we did with Paris, Gateshead & to a lesser extent Crusaders we won't get the same result, no SL club within a couple of years. As you say it shouldn't be about expansion v heartland and I would be equally sceptical about any plan to expend valuable time, credibility and resources on a harebrained plan to drop heartlands clubs into SL on the off chance it might work.

I'm happy to indulge you sir, and get back to debate You say "the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked".

What I am saying is that the top down method financed by giving London or Crusaders or Gateshead the same money as Leeds, Hull and Wigan has not worked because the level of investment is paltry and does not take into account the fact that these expansion clubs need higher levels of income to succeed at top down.

What I am saying if people want to engage in the debate, is that when there was money there you saw success. London achieved fifth best supported club and fourth in the league and went on to the challenge cup final. Celtic Crusaders battled out a close game before 6,000 fans with Saints, Gatehead made mid-table and had crowds in excess of most traditional clubs from year one not far behind what widnes managed this year.

So top down works, it is just that it is underfinanced, and fails only when the finance fails. Which is usually relatively quickly

Now how Suprleague/RFL use the SKY money is their choice, but it would not be mine. I recognise the tremendous added value a succesful London and Wales would give to the game and i think maybe you do. I have always thought that a strategic club or two could be financed adequately enough for it to grow. Even SL through Neil Hudgell admitted London may have to be "centrally funded" if Mr, Hughes pulled out. So I'm not way off beam.

As for your idea it has "not worked" when it comes to these clubs building their own resources, as far as London go the informed opinion you can read in RL World is that they oversee one of the best player development systems now and that is so valuable to RL. Celtic Crusaders were getting good results with the kids too as reported by posters from down there and the RL press.

Top down works but the SL clubs and SKY won't make the adequate investment. It worked at Melbourne storm but I recognise the Aussie game is a greater attraction.

It was Mr. Keighley remarks I was replying to because he said it was not worth removing such as Hull.K.R. for London which was with respect to him typical bias against non northern clubs. Hull FC are in place to develop RL players and attract RL fans form Hull so the game doesn't need two clubs to do this, it needs a club to do this in other parts of the country to expand our game

Rugby League is a minority sport with scant resources it can build outside the M62 if that was planned and funded.

Finally (please do come back to the debate if you wish you'd be welcome) you refer to a "harebrained scheme to drop (I think you mean expansion here?) clubs into SL on the off chance it will work".

Don't you think Salford were dropped into SL on the off chance they would work? Or Halifax?? Or Bradford?? Or Wakefield?? Or Oldham?? The list is endless, and we see Cas declaring they are "not working" Neil Hudgell can't make HKR work either so I don't think it fair to differentiate between clubs depending on wether they are supposedly "Traditional" or "Expansion" they are all Rugby League clubs and if ever SKY/RFL/SLE decided to use Superleague as a vehicle for expanding the game, because the game only expands to any great degree in SL areas, I think the first six names on there have to be Leeds, Wigan, Hull, London, south wales and France.

I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on this?

[The Parksider]

I would if you stop perpetrating myths.

Put me on ignore Solly, we don't see eye to eye. I'll pop you on ignore. Don't keep this going or the thread will be locked.

Good luck.....

[Northern Sol]

Perhaps if everybody put Parky on ignore then we might see an end to his various myths.

[Pottsy]

Any chance someone could start a thread about the situation at Salford?

I'm sick of having to wade through dull circular/hypothetical arguments in the hope of finding anything slightly on-topic.

Quite what the impending demise of one of rugby league's most established clubs has to do with whether a hypothetical super league franchise in Barcelona is viable, I have no idea.

I'm more concerned about whether my club (and my remaining interest in this sport) will survive.

Edited by Pottsy, 22 December 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[Northern Sol]

Because some seem to think that the RFL is fighting off offers to base teams in Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Paris, Rome etc...

The reality is that aside from Toulouse, there are no viable clubs out the "heartlands" (arguably Toulouse is French heartlands) and thus Salford represent one the best of what is available. As do Fax, Leigh and even Fev.

[The Parksider]

Quite what the impending demise of one of rugby league's most established clubs has to do with whether a hypothetical super league franchise in Barcelona is viable, I have no idea.

I think when clubs like Salford go under (if it happens) it raises questions about whether Superleague itself is viable in it's current form, and approach. Is lifting another trad club with poor resources into their place the answer or a whole new approach? I'm sure when there's some news we'll get back onto Salford directly. Have you heard anything?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

If someone is going to post in a constantly provocative nature, then they cannot complain when they receive an emotional response. That is what defines provoking!

The provocation stops, the unwelcome responses stop. It's not a coincidence. It's not about having the right or wrong ideas.

an emotional response is not the same as an abusive one.
If people post views that others find provocative that's the nature of discourse. Discussion if it is to be meaningful needs to be rational and informed.

I've found it very much about having the 'wrong' ideas.

[tonyXIII]

I'll try not to be abusive, but I want to make a point about Parksider and his posts.

Back in post 469, about halfway down, you state "My point is simple". If it is simple, why is that post (along with many others of yours) so long? It is so long that I can't be bothered to read it all. I did start, but I lost the will after a couple of paragraphs. If you really do have a point to make, can I respectfully ask that you make it and move on? Please? Oh, btw, you are not alone in the "magazine article impersonating a message board post" stakes.

Anyway, it looks like Salford fans are in for an anxious Christmas, but I wish everyone (us especially) a merry Christmas and a prosperous and exciting 2013.

[41hound]

But anyways...

So Salford have a cancelled a friendly now. Is this the latest sign of impending doom? Anything on the positive front?

Hi Wellsy - the cancellation was a bad sign indeed. The clubs have now reinstated it for 13th Jan, but that is after 7th January Winding up hearing. The home game v Swinton on 6th January is still on and they are selling tickets at Salford & Swinton's grounds and online. If the worse happens this MAY be Salford's last ever match - we need a big gate to help, please come and support if you can everyone

[tonyXIII]

Hi Wellsy - the cancellation was a bad sign indeed. The clubs have now reinstated it for 13th Jan, but that is after 7th January Winding up hearing. The home game v Swinton on 6th January is still on and they are selling tickets at Salford & Swinton's grounds and online. If the worse happens this MAY be Salford's last ever match - we need a big gate to help, please come and support if you can everyone

Weather and roads permitting, I'll be there. It could be my first and last game at the stadium.